Comments for The votes are in for Clear Lake Riviera election at http://lakeconews.com , comment 1 to 9 out of 9 comments http://lakeconews.com Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:55:06 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/4689/919/#comment-5719 All I ask is to back up what you say. Show me the proof. Show me where 51 percent is needed to amend the constitution. You may be right and it also may be a matter of interpretation. There may indeed be a need to have a re-vote but where is the policy procedure for voting for our association. If there is none, anything may go. Again I\'m not trying to be adversarial, just wanting to get to the bottom of issue. If we take all the emotion out of the process and focus on the facts we may get to the truth, not opinion. The only thing I have is what I can see. I don\'t think I can base my articles on hear say. I can say someone said it but it is still unsubstantiated. - RayPerry Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:10:29 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/4689/919/#comment-5701 Jeese, Ray, you say you were at the opening of the ballots and reported Lois was "vocal" but apparently didn\'t hear what she said. She said the ballot was illegal (The ballots said "vote for two" when they should\'ve said vote for four). She said don\'t count the ballots that have two votes or send out new ballots to everyone. She said the ballot wasn\'t secret becase some had written their names on the ballots. She said there wasn\'t a "disinterested third party" supervising the openning of the ballots as required by state law governing HOA\'s. This should\'ve been the headlines of your article, if you\'re just trying to report the news. Lois is right. This was an illegal election. What are you going to do about it? Lois objected to the the "quorum" claim because she knows they use that to change the Riviera Constitution, as you admit they have already done with your "amended" copy. Again, the Riviera CC&R\'s, like most other Association CC&R\'s can only be amended by 51 per cent of the owners. - Kruk Ed Strait Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:09:46 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/4689/919/#comment-5695 Darrell; Do YOU have a copy of the original document? Have you seen it? I find it hard to believe that all the copies have been destroyed. It may not be your job but if you have evidence of a conspiracy you should let it be seen, not make accusations without evidence. Where does it say that it has to be approved by 51 percent of the owners? I would like to know. What about election of board members. Where does it say that it needs 51 percent to elect? Until I see the documents you refer to, I stand by my story. However if you are correct then that is a another story that could be told. I\'m not for or against anyone, I\'m just trying to report the news. - RayPerry Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:31:00 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/4689/919/#comment-5693 Some people, Ray, will think it\'s strange that you admit you follow "amended" CC&R\'s and don\'t have copies of the originals. They should be posted on a wall where everyone can see. We could give you a copy but that\'s not our job. You wrote the article. If you\'re sincere, as you say, you will walk across the street tomorrow and demand a copy from the association. That\'s where the paper trail begins. Just two clues. First, they won\'t give you a copy because they\'ve destroyed them all. Second, Rivierra CC&R\'s, like most other association CC&R\'s, can only be amended by 51 per cent of the owners. Was your 1991 "amended" copy approved by 51 per cent of the owners? Lois Townsend and her friends say no!!!!!! - Kruk Ed Strait Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:51:28 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/4689/919/#comment-5691 Darrell: Weren’t you on the board back then? I guess you would know. I have been a property owner here in the Riviera for several years and I know to use the current CC&R\'s, (as amended June 22, 1991) not the proposed ones. I\'d like to see a copy of what you are talking about. I try to be fair and impartial in my reporting and if I\'m wrong I will be the first to admit it. If what you are saying is true, why hasn\'t anyone said anything till recently? Why wasn\'t it brought up at any of the many meetings I have attended? Where is the paper trail? Show me proof. It seems very unlikely that a quorum of 51 percent of the property owners would be called for. It is difficult to get 10 percent of voters to show up at any election much less 50 percent plus one. In the research I have made I have reported the truth. If you have something I should see, I would be glad to look at it. You know where to find me. - RayPerry Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:13:37 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/4689/919/#comment-5690 Ray says he read all of the CC&R\'s and didn\'t find "quorum." He must be reading amended CC&R\'s from Sid Donnel or Alan Siegal. The CC&R\'s, of course, can\'t be amended without 51 per cent of the owners which means they\'ve never been amended. Ray should get the original CC&R\'s and read them. He won\'t find them at the association. If he does even more research he\'ll find the studied and deliberate attempt, ten years ago, to change the quorum without a quorum. Does Ray honestly think that Lois Townsend and her friends are imagining all this????? - Kruk Ed Strait Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:38:47 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/4689/919/#comment-5686 Where does it say in the CC&R\'s about the election quorum? This is a quote from the by-laws article V section 4; Quorum and Approval by Ballot. (a) The presence in person or by proxy of ten percent (10%) of the Association members eligible to vote constitutes a quorum for transacting business at any meeting of the members. (b) Approval by written ballot is valid when the number of approvals equals or exceeds a majority of the ballot votes cast, and the number of ballot votes cast equals or exceeds ten percent (10%) of the membership eligible to vote. (c) Each eligible membership is entitled to one (1) vote. There were 771 ballots cast, as I stated in the article only 281 need be cast to make a quorum. I have just read all of the CC&R\'s and By-laws and this is the only place I can find that refers to quorum\'s. Where are you getting your information? I would sincerely like to see where a 51 percent of the owners are needed to vote to either elect officers or even to change the CC&R\'s. - RayPerry Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:52:25 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/4689/919/#comment-5674 ..and all the others who voted for me but not back to the drawing board. Alan and sid are no longer on the board. They resigned when letters let the public know they were violating the term limits of the CC&R\'s. Also, Tony will be on the board if the election isn\'t thrown out (Lois Townsend is right, it should be thrown out. Most people voted for two under false instructions). Tony is on a campaign to close the association down. The association also has a giant "quorum" problem that won\'t go away. There will be more letters until this law is kept. The CC&R\'s say a quorum is 51 per cent of the owners. They\'re operating on 51 per cent of the vote. That\'s a very big difference. We\'re surprised Ray Perry hasn\'t caught on yet. - Kruk Ed Strait Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:20:17 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/4689/919/#comment-5640 back to the drawing board, eh? - smurf Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:25:59 +0100